On Wed, 3 Jul 2019 at 15:01, Kevin A. McGrail <[email protected]> wrote:
> > - It sets up the precedence that every hard decision will wait a year > for a member referendum > no, it doesn't. I'm saying we might want to wait an additional year because we, as a committee, have not ourselves decided what we want to do yet - It insults the sitting board that they can't make a tough decision. > not, it doesn't. it would be the board who ultimately rubber stamp the idea to poll the membership. the D&I committee certainly has no power to enact such a thing. we would be suggesting this to the board as a possible way forward, and they can tell us whether they deem it prudent/necessary should the situation come to pass - It infers the need to circumvent a possible negative board decisions > and instead go to the members to "overrule" them either retro- or > proactively. > see above > - In the lawyer world there is a quote, never ask a question you don't > know the answer to. This is a massive gamble. > what are we gambling? as in, what do we lose? the current situation, it seems is, we won't fund Outreachy. if we ask and the board or the membership and there is a decision to maintain the status quo, nothing has changed and nothing has been lost conversely, if we don't ask, we get the same outcome. so we have everything to gain and nothing to lose > - I predict this particular topic of effectively paying for code will > create partisan divisions with our members who are likely to vehemently > disagree/agree > same is true for any tough decision. but that doesn't mean we should avoid making tough decisions
